High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeQuashed; The Final Report in Crime No.598/2022 ...

Anoop and others v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:Crl.M.C No.5290 of 2023

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • Raja Vijayaraghavan V.
Judgment Date
2023-07-26
Court Decision / Holding
This petition is allowed; Annexure I Final Report in Crime No.598/2022 of Alappuzha North Police Station and all further proceedings against the petitioners pending as SC No.10/2023 are quashed.
Final Disposition
Quashed; The Final Report in Crime No.598/2022 and all further proceedings in SC No.10/2023 are quashed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Anoop
  • Sajith
  • Vineeth
  • Arnold Gomas
  • Jithu

Respondents

  • State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala
  • Abraham@Ebi
  • Sri. Vipin Narayan, Sr. Public Prosecutor

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • MANUHARSHAKUMAR
  • • ADARSHS.
  • • GOVINDCHANDRABHANU

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Sri. Vipin Narayan, Sr. Public Prosecutor

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Criminal Miscellaneous Case (Crl.M.C No.5290 of 2023) before the Kerala High Court—presided by Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V—seeks exercise of the court’s inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to quash a criminal proceeding arising from SC No.10/2023 (Asst. Sessions Court, Alappuzha). The five petitioners (Anoop, Sajith, Vineeth, Arnold Gomas, and Jithu) are accused in a case alleging offences under IPC Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 294(b), 323, 324, 308, and 427 following an incident on 29.05.2022 where an unlawful assembly allegedly restrained and assaulted the de facto complainant. The petition hinges on an amicable settlement between the parties and argues that quashing would advance peace and the ends of justice, noting that the respondent has no lasting grievances and that there are no other serious crimes against the petitioners. The Public Prosecutor initially voiced reservations but acknowledged the lack of serious prior crimes. The Court cites State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan, Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab to delineate the scope of 482 CrPC, particularly that quashing is permissible for private, non-compoundable offences with a civil character when the dispute is settled, subject to exceptions for heinous or public-interest offences. After weighing gravity, injuries, antecedents, and the settlement, the Court concludes quashing would not adversely impact society and would conserve judicial resources. Consequently, the petition is allowed and the Final Report in Crime No.598/2022 and all further proceedings in SC No.10/2023 are quashed.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Section 320 of the Code of Criminal ProcedureIPC Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 294(b), 323, 324, 308, 427

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Ends of justice
  • Civil/private character of disputes
  • Settlement/compromise as basis to exercise powers under Section 482 CrPC
  • Not to quash for heinous/serious offences (e.g., murder, rape, dacoity) or offences under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act
  • Consideration of antecedents and conduct of the accused in quashing proceedings
  • Examination of the charge only after evidence is collected (not during investigation) to determine if inclusion of certain sections (e.g., Section 307 IPC) is genuine

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submit that the parties have resolved their dispute amicably. They emphasize that quashing the proceedings under Section 482 CrPC would promote peace, prevent further harassment, and conserve judicial resources, given the private nature of the dispute and lack of any other serious offences by the petitioners.

Contentions of Respondents

The State/Prosecution raised reservations about relying solely on a settlement to terminate proceedings under Section 482 CrPC, stressing that the court must consider the nature and gravity of the alleged offences and potential impact on public interest. They note the need to carefully assess the evidence and allegations, and to ensure that quashing does not undermine justice, especially where serious or public-interest involved offences are present.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan(2019) 5 SCC 688PositiveQuashing of non-compoundable offences with civil/private character when disputes are settled, as summarized in the proceeding.
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab(2012) 10 SCC 303PositiveGuided the scope and limitations of Section 482 in the context of quashing and the role of evidence and public interest.
Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab(2014) 6 SCC 466PositiveClarified cautions about quashing certain offences; harmonized with private settlement considerations in the present context.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Anoop and others v. State of Kerala and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

Crl.M.C No.5290 of 2023 1 ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V WEDNESDAY, THE 26[TH] DAY OF JULY 2023 / 4TH SRAVANA, 1945 CRL.MC NO. 5290 OF 2023`** ``` SC10/2023OFASST.SESSIONSCOURT(SUBCOURT),ALAPPUZHA PETITIONERS/ACCUSED: ``` ``` 1ANOOP AGED21YEARS S/ORAJU,VISASSERRILHOUSE,PATHIRAPALLYP.O, - ARYADPANCHAYATHWARD18,ALAPPUZHA,PIN688521 2SAJITH AGED22YEARS S/OSABU,KULANGARAYILVEEDU,AVALOOKUNNUPO,ARYAD - PANCHAYATHWARD1,ALAPPUZHA,PIN688006 3VINEETH AGED20YEARS S/OFRANCIS,KOOTTUNGALVEEDU,MARARIKULAMPO, MARARIKULAMSOUTHPANCHAYATH,WARD10,ALAPPUZHA, - PIN688523 4ARNOLDGOMAS AGED21YEARS S/OAKOSIOUSGOMAS,GOMASCOTTAGE,PATHIRAPALLYPO, - ARYADPANCHAYATH,WARD18,ALAPPUZHA,PIN688008 5JITHU AGED21YEARS S/OBABU,VADASSERYILHOUSE,MARARIKULAMPO, MARARIKULAMSOUTHPANCHAYATH,WARD10,ALAPPUZHA, - PIN688523 BYADVS. MANUHARSHAKUMAR ADARSHS. GOVINDCHANDRABHANU ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/STATE & DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:`** ``` 1STATEOFKERALA REPRESENTEDBYPUBLICPROSECUTOR, ``` Crl.M.C No.5290 of 2023 2 ``` - HIGHCOURTOFKERALA,PIN682031 ``` ``` 2ABRAHAM@EBI AGED26YEARS S/OMANUEL,THYPARAMBILVEEDU,ARYADPANCHAYATH, - WARD18,PATHIRAPALLYPO,ALAPPUZHA,PIN688008 ``` ``` SRI.VIPINNARAYAN,SR.PUBLICPROSECUTOR ``` ``` THISCRIMINALMISC.CASEHAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSION ON26.07.2023,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYPASSEDTHE FOLLOWING: ``` Crl.M.C No.5290 of 2023 3 ## **ORDER** This petition is filed invoking the powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code” for the sake of brevity). 2. The petitioners herein are the accused, Nos.1 to 5, in SC.No.10 of 2023, on the files of the Asst. Sessions Court, Alappuzha. In the said case, they are accused of committing the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 294(b), 323, 324, 308, and 427 of the IPC. 3. The prosecution allegation, as borne out from the records, are as under: On 29.05.2022 at about 10.15 p.m., the petitioners herein, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and in furtherance of their common intention, wrongfully restrained the de facto complainant and attacked him, causing injuries. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the parties have settled their dispute and do not wish to pursue the prosecution proceedings. He relies on the affidavit filed by the party respondent in support of his contention. Counsel argues that if the proceedings are terminated, with the recording of the amicable settlement, the parties can Crl.M.C No.5290 of 2023 4 ## move forward in an atmosphere of peace and mutual respect. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, has expressed reservations about quashing the proceedings solely on the basis of the settlement. He argues that the facts and circumstances may not warrant the exercise of the court's inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, it is fairly submitted that there have been no other crimes of serious nature registered against the petitioners to date. It is further submitted that the statement of the party respondent has been recorded, and he has unequivocally stated that he does not have any lasting grievances. 6. I have considered the submissions and have gone through the records. 7. In **State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan,[1]** , a three-judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has summarized the law as laid down in **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab[2]** , **Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab[3]** and in subsequent cases. It was laid down as under: 15. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point referred to hereinabove, it is observed and held as under: > 15.1. That the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to > 1 [(2019) 5 SCC 688] > 2 (2012) 10 SCC 303 > 3 2014 (6) SCC 466 Crl.M.C No.5290 of 2023 5 quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves; - 15.2. Such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society; - 15.3. Similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender; - 15.4. Offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act, etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act, etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead Crl.M.C No.5290 of 2023 6 to framing the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delicate parts of the body, nature of weapons used, etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge-sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paras 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in Narinder Singh [Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 54] should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove; 15.5. While exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offenses, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impact on society, on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise, etc. 8. Having carefully analyzed the prayer sought in the light of the principles laid down above and also the nature of the allegations, the gravity of the offense, the severity of injuries inflicted, antecedents of the accused, and the amicable relationship that now exists between the parties, Crl.M.C No.5290 of 2023 7 I am of the considered opinion that quashing the proceedings on the basis of the settlement will not have any adverse impact on society. In fact, it would only serve to bring about peace and secure the ends of justice. Additionally, persisting with the prosecution would be a waste of time, as the prospects of conviction are bleak. In the light of all of the relevant circumstances, I am of the considered view that this Court would be well justified in invoking its extraordinary powers under Section 482 of the Code to quash the proceedings This petition is allowed. Annexure-1 Final Report in Crime No.598/2022 of Alappuzha North Police Station and all further proceedings against the petitioners pending as S.C.No.10/2023 on the files of the Asst.Sessions Court, Alappuzha, are quashed. Sd/- **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, JUDGE** IAP Crl.M.C No.5290 of 2023 8 ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 5290/2023`** ``` PETITIONERS’ANNEXURES: ``` ``` AnnexureICERTIFIEDCOPYOFFIRANDFINALREPORTIN SCNO.10/2023OFASST.SESSIONSCOURT ALAPPUZHAINCRIMENO.598/2022OFALAPPUZHA NORTHPOLICESTATION ``` ``` AnnexureIIAFFIDAVITSWORNBY2NDRESPONDENTDATED 18.06.2023 ```